Homosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us Bond, Scientists Say

  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Nov 29, 2014 5:57 PM GMT
    Homosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us Bond, Scientists Say


    "Now researchers from the University of Portsmouth in England have put forth a controversial new theory. They say homosexuality evolved in humans and other primates because it helps us form bonds with one another."

    "However, because sexual behavior is intimate and pleasurable, it is also used in many species, including non-human primates, to help form and maintain social bonds. We can all see this in romantic couples who bond by engaging in sexual behavior even when reproduction is not possible."



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/homosexuality-evolution-social-bonding_n_6218406.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2014 7:08 PM GMT
    metta

    I wonder how a guy like you is still single

    You are intelligent, handsome, and such a nice human being.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2014 7:13 PM GMT
    metta8 saidHomosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us Bond, Scientists Say


    "Now researchers from the University of Portsmouth in England have put forth a controversial new theory. They say homosexuality evolved in humans and other primates because it helps us form bonds with one another."

    "However, because sexual behavior is intimate and pleasurable, it is also used in many species, including non-human primates, to help form and maintain social bonds. We can all see this in romantic couples who bond by engaging in sexual behavior even when reproduction is not possible."



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/homosexuality-evolution-social-bonding_n_6218406.html


    Thanks for posting this; it's an angle I wish was explored more often. I found it a little frustrating, though, that the article is trying so hard to form a unidirectional causality link (as opposed to simple correlation); I don't think they made a very good case that the ability to form advanced social bonding wouldn't give rise to and/or reinforce [epi]genetic homosexual tendencies as opposed to the converse.

    After all, for several decades it has been demonstrated again and again that in canine species, the genes for floppy ears come with the genes that make human bonding possible. As far as I know, nobody on those research projects has been stupid enough to claim that dogs evolved floppy ears as a means of achieving bonding with humans.

    Still, I'm glad this is being explored; thanks again for the link.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 2:56 AM GMT

    I think it's crap. I have some VERY close female friends, and trust me, I'm not remotely, even infinitesimaly, attracted to them that way.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 3:50 AM GMT
    Oh I don't know about this application of the theory of evolution. Might be better explained by the no string theory of sexuality.

    Why does being gay have to be explained by evolution in terms of how does this specific attraction benefit survival of the species. Certainly we do not require that validation.

    Hair may have had some evolutionary benefit but that doesn't have blondes seeking justification for not being brunette. And what are redheads, the gay uncles of hair?

    If looking at sexual orientations in terms of evolution, then I'd see it more as expressive in its variety as is the color of hair or skin or the shapes of eyes. That the evolution is to be found in the multitudes of expressions of sexuality; not that a specific sexuality is some separate evolutionary branch with its own specific purpose. The more likely case might be that it's just sexuality showing off.

    Sex is like a snowflake. There's not just one pattern. Does there have to be a reason for each one? How does being str8 or being gay account for what seems the orientation of some guys being attracted to transgendered snowflakes, for instance?

    So if by reason of evolution, than I think more likely it is the case that all of sexuality is about socializing and propagation was merely a happy and convenient coincidence which allowed for socials to continue through the generations. Life loves a party. This is why I've often said that it's rarely worth leaving the house unless to get laid, I mean, to socialize.

    So the part of the article I agree with is that sexuality generally is about bonding. But being specifically gay or str8 or bi or trans or tri, all of that is just sex throwing a party. Undress appropriately.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 1:57 PM GMT
    To answer your question in short form, when you have a significant portion of the world claiming that homosexuality is a choice, finding a scientific basis becomes rather important. From a fundamental standpoint, all major traits in a population should have a evolutionary basis otherwise the trait wouldn't be selected for - trying to find that basis is neither a cop out nor futile. It could possible give justification to millions around the world who are told every day that they chose this life and are sinners.

    We specifically look at the evolution of 'gay', because we already know the evolution of 'straight' - to breed.

    Transgender/queer/asexual/pansexual/etc will eventually get there due as well. Unfortunately, they lag even further behind gays in terms of rights - and thats a sad thing. Once the gay stuff is under the rug for the modern world, we can hopefully move on to convincing the world that its ok to be transgender/pansexual/...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 2:44 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    I think it's crap. I have some VERY close female friends, and trust me, I'm not remotely, even infinitesimaly, attracted to them that way.



    The article is by no means suggesting that you have to have a sexual experience to bond. Nor do you have to have sexual thoughts of someone you bond with. This should be obvious when you look at families where the bonding Is typically very strong and completely asexual.

    Rather the article is linking sexual feelings with bonding not the other way around. Think of it as a means of bonding but not the only needs a bonding. It makes a lot of sense when you look at the Spartans where bonding was a critical part of the army.

    The notion that sexual activity leads to bonding has already been discussed in studies on the hormone oxytocin. The studies found that women release a higher level of oxytocin than men which helps explain why they would be more likely to form lasting relationships from their sexual experiences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 3:58 PM GMT
    friendormate said
    meninlove said
    I think it's crap. I have some VERY close female friends, and trust me, I'm not remotely, even infinitesimaly, attracted to them that way.



    The article is by no means suggesting that you have to have a sexual experience to bond. Nor do you have to have sexual thoughts of someone you bond with. This should be obvious when you look at families where the bonding Is typically very strong and completely asexual.

    Rather the article is linking sexual feelings with bonding not the other way around. Think of it as a means of bonding but not the only needs a bonding. It makes a lot of sense when you look at the Spartans where bonding was a critical part of the army.

    The notion that sexual activity leads to bonding has already been discussed in studies on the hormone oxytocin. The studies found that women release a higher level of oxytocin than men which helps explain why they would be more likely to form lasting relationships from their sexual experiences.


    For some reason, your post appears to contradict itself. As well, I never mentioned having a sexual experience at all.
    ?
    I concur with what a scientist at the end of the article said.

    A great many straight people do not appreciate being told their bonding with pals have sexual overtones. Myself and a rather large percentage of gays dislike that inference as well when it comes to friendships with other gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 5:17 PM GMT
    Interesting article and thank for posting it. I've always been fascinated by the "biological imperative" for the persistency of homosexuality, genetic or otherwise, though I believe the evidence adduced so far establishes the case for a genetic origin. In fact, every evolutionary theory put forth to date seems to make sense. It must have some benefit if it's been around so long despite the various censures against it.
  • muscleboundfe...

    Posts: 392

    Nov 30, 2014 5:41 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidInteresting article and thank for posting it. I've always been fascinated by the "biological imperative" for the persistency of homosexuality, genetic or otherwise, though I believe the evidence adduced so far establishes the case for a genetic origin. In fact, every evolutionary theory put forth to date seems to make sense. It must have some benefit if it's been around so long despite the various censures against it.


    Maybe sex feels good and many animals will do whatever they need to experience pleasure. Then again I've never felt the need to justify my sexuality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 5:59 PM GMT
    coloradojock16 saidTo answer your question in short form, when you have a significant portion of the world claiming that homosexuality is a choice, finding a scientific basis becomes rather important. From a fundamental standpoint, all major traits in a population should have a evolutionary basis otherwise the trait wouldn't be selected for - trying to find that basis is neither a cop out nor futile. It could possible give justification to millions around the world who are told every day that they chose this life and are sinners.

    We specifically look at the evolution of 'gay', because we already know the evolution of 'straight' - to breed.

    Transgender/queer/asexual/pansexual/etc will eventually get there due as well. Unfortunately, they lag even further behind gays in terms of rights - and thats a sad thing. Once the gay stuff is under the rug for the modern world, we can hopefully move on to convincing the world that its ok to be transgender/pansexual/...


    It was rhetorical but thank you for your well intended effort.

    Not all traits which might have been put out there by design or randomly during a process of evolution are in themselves still existent by having been a "trait...selected for" because some traits remain not as a furthering of mere survival of the species but instead remain as creative expressions within survival because such traits didn't work against survival. So there would have been no reason for evolutionary forces to exert energy to force a characteristic out of existence.

    Which is why I said, even if jokingly, that we don't need that reason because variations of expressions of the bonding of consensual adults are validated by existing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2014 12:02 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    flaming_wars saidmetta

    I wonder how a guy like you is still single

    You are intelligent, handsome, and such a nice human being.


    Major personality and psychological issues. icon_wink.gif


    Good to see you are confronting your problems, it's the first step.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2014 1:44 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    timmm55 said
    southbeach1500 said
    flaming_wars saidmetta

    I wonder how a guy like you is still single

    You are intelligent, handsome, and such a nice human being.


    Major personality and psychological issues. icon_wink.gif


    Good to see you are confronting your problems, it's the first step.


    Snarky comment aside, there's abundant evidence supporting my statement.


    NO there isn't. The overwhelming evidence is that you would do anything and say anything to silence him or discredit him.